Yeah, I see that. For this one: strongly implied, logical, in use (the important bit), but not official.

Yes, move the junction if it is in the wrong place. The register is a good sign you found the right trail. source= (should be source:geometry) tells you I got this route from USFS data, which I download from their "clearinghouse". If you have a GPS track, it'll be a better source for the geometry. Move it how you like, please add access that I seem to have missed, please estimate trail_visibility (which does get rendered in places), just don't add a "TR" to the ref number because that's not proper.

I've not seen a lot of guidance for the exact location of a "trailhead", but generally it is on the trail while a register box would be, like a guide post, better mapped next to it.

I have mapped registers in the past as:
tourism=information
information=trail_register
since user defined values are valid.

Which trailhead? More important is to make sure an appropriate trail_visibility is set.

I have hiked this trail. This trail is used by peak baggers. The biggest problem with it is trying to decipher it from all the cow paths. Both ends are visible.

Even if it truly did not exist, mapping it and stating trail_visibility=no is information that communicates to the casual user that this will be a very hard route to travel whereas deleting it only makes it look forgotten.

I usually find it best, for an official trail like this, to map it as best I can and then set an appropriate trail_visibility.

Ah, same reason I changed Hardluck to Los Alamos over by Slide Mountain. The MVUM stuff I downloaded from the USFS GIS didn't have an opinion on that one, but it says this one is Sespe Road. If you slide down to the map on that page, you'll see the black line for the road is labeled "Sespe Road" (it is drawing from the same data set I downloaded). Underneath it is a white line labeled "Rose Valley Road" that continues on where the old Sespe River Road (until 1969? now trail) went.

So, the trailhead https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/lpnf/recarea/?recid=81832 says it is "at the end of the Sespe River Road, also known as Rose Valley Road." I see I called it Sespe River Road in a 2017 blog post and that was probably because Craig Carey called it that.

Consistency seems to be too much to ask.

Hi! I'm wondering why you reverted the name on Sespe Road to the old Rose Valley Road? I see that's what TIGER claims, but trust in that would be misplaced.

With regards to way/1112774432, that's a bad assumption. All the other bridges have gone, if there ever were any, so why would this survive? It's marked as a track road, a type that is often cheap and just fords things. It was built in a time when they would just drop fill on things. If it washed out, they'd do it again. It was closed as a road over 50 years ago. Which brings to the question in the fixme: delete it? No, because people might not want to use the USGS map with it on it? The thing is, these are fundamentally not track roads. They are abandoned in a temperate rain forest, overgrown, many have been actively removed. The land manager doesn't want people on this one in particular as the area is closed to access. Some of the ones that are officially trail are hard to travel. Leaving it is preserving history over ground truth.

You can see that the scary bridge over 44 Creek is no more from satellite imagery?

Having dogs under strict voice control when off leash is a legal requirement in Humboldt County and many other places. You can find a description in this brochure by the folks who manage the land just south of this change set: https://www.friendsofthedunes.org/_files/ugd/a9c01c_7fdb2e1230304bad8a467d86d5b195d1.pdf

I realize that iD makes an apparent big deal of these crossings and makes adding bridges, culverts, and fords easy and gives you a nice pat on the back for doing it. It makes the same big deal if it is a river or a seasonal stream crossing. However, if it becomes important to how, it is vital that it is correct. That's why there's the equally valid forth option to ignore this issue.

It's an "issue" not an "error". Mapping is an iterative process. We both agree there's a road there? We wouldn't want to leave it off just because we don't know how it crosses the streams? (Streams that aren't always there, I have found on surveys of similar roads.)

I have just produced another "issue" by adding a ford to a "Road 311" south of here even though there is no water crossing shown. If you would like to repair it, I'm sure the map would be greatly improved with the addition of the Black Butte River that road happens to cross.

Are there bridges there? Usually there would be culverts or fords. There are very few bridges on these track roads. I personally will only draw a culvert or bridge if I know it is there.

There's a load of tourism=camp_site beside Cave Lake. You probably meant tourism=camp_pitch since each one is not a complete campground in and of itself. I would just change it, except the area is a picnic area. Should they be picnic tables?

For Carter Meadows Trail, was this actually from FS topo or data download from their clearinghouse? There's currently a line from Strava that avoids the private property to the west, so it looks like it might have been rerouted.

s/Knoll/Knob/

Re: TJ Corral. Looks like you tagged the corral itself as man_made=corral but looks like the correct tag would be tourism=trail_riding_station. The description is very apt for this type of corral.

Why? Particularly along the part of the trail that includes bridges too narrow for anything but an (illegal) motorcycle and with trees across the railing and devolves into a bear tunnel near the creek?

Picked some slightly different tagging and reinstated it, including a note with the description on the "to Emerald Ridge Trail" sign in the Tall Trees area.

Was there a reason beyond not appearing on the very old USGS for deleting this trail?

You're quite right, I should have done that. Even if the MVUM might be changed next year, that's no reason to not have the best information at the time of editing.

There's a bit of a catch 22 for the MVUM having errors.